4 ms·
I’m always amazed in these discussions how many people apparently have jobs doing a bunch of stuff that either doesn’t need to be correct or is simple enough th
by mplanchard 2y ago
I’m always amazed in these discussions how many people apparently have jobs doing a bunch of stuff that either doesn’t need to be correct or is simple enough that it doesn’t require any significant amount of external context.
- grg0 2y agoIn other words, people preaching LLMs are noobs with no real stake in what they are doing. But you can't really call people noobs these days.
- mplanchard 2y agoHa, a little harsher than I intended it to come off, but it really does make me wonder.
- joquarky 2y agoI'm always amazed by the arrogance that if you can't hack it, then everyone else can't either.
- mplanchard 2y agoYes, my arrogance amazes even me. The point is more that everyone seems to acknowledge that a) output is spotty, and b) it’s difficult to provide enough context to work on anything that’s not fairly self-contained. And yet we also constantly have people saying that they’re using AI for some ridiculous percentage of their actual job output. So, I’m just curious how one reconciles those two things. Either most people’s jobs consist of a lot more small, self-contained mini-projects than my jobs generally have, or people’s jobs are more accepting of incorrect output than I’m used to, or people are overstating their use of the tool. Or something else!